Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157261›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Handling by avian frugivores affects diaspore secondary removal.

Tadeu J Guerra, João V S Messeder, André J Arruda, Lisieux F Fuzessy, Roberta L C Dayrell, Frederico S Neves, Fernando A O Silveira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tadeu J GuerraDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1247-365X
João V S MessederDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
André J ArrudaDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Lisieux F FuzessyDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Roberta L C DayrellDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4770-9100
Frederico S NevesDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Fernando A O SilveiraDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The balance between the costs and benefits of fleshy fruit production depends on the feeding behavior of their seed dispersers, which might effectively disperse seeds to farther areas or drop beneath parent plants some diaspores they handle during frugivory bouts. Nevertheless, the consequences of variation in fruit handling by primary seed dispersers on the secondary removal of diaspores remains poorly understood. We conducted a field study to determine how variation in fruit handling by avian frugivores affects short-term secondary removal of Miconia irwinii (Melastomataceae) diaspores by the ground-dwelling fauna in campo rupestre vegetation, southeastern Brazil. We conducted factorial experiments manipulating: (1) different outcomes of primary fruit/seed removal by birds, (2) distances of diaspore deposition from conspecifics, and (3) the access of ants and vertebrates to diaspores. We showed that secondary removal of diaspores was highly variable at the population scale, with an overall low removal rate by the ground-dwelling fauna (13% seeds, 19% fruits). However, we found that gut-passed seeds embedded in bird feces were less removed than seeds expelled from fruits. Gut-passed seeds were more likely to be removed by ant species acting as secondary dispersers, whereas pulp-free seeds dropped by birds were likely to interact with potential seed predators, including ants and rodents. We found no clear effect of dispersal from parent plant vicinity on seed removal, but fruit removal was significantly higher near parent plants. Partially defleshed fruits were more removed than intact fruits. The removal of fruits by ant and vertebrate rescuers, including lizards and birds, might reduce the costs of interactions with less effective dispersers that drop partially defleshed fruits under parent plants. Our study highlights that variation in fruit handling by primary avian seed dispersers mediate subsequent interactions among discarded diaspores and ground-dwelling animals, potentially affecting final seed fates. Moreover, we argue that escape-related benefits of dispersal can be contingent on how primary dispersers handle and discard seeds.

Indexed as

Food ChainForestsModels, BiologicalAnimalsBirdsBrazilMalePopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID30157261
PMCPMC6114891
OpenAlexW2889123744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.